When you go to sleep, where do you really GO?

Dead people don't dream. Once they are gone, consciousness is lost forever.

And as much as that person is sad over the love of his life, like everyone else, he has to learn to move on. He can be a bitter hardened negative person taking it out on everyone because of it, but he still has to forget about her. There are certain exceptions you have to be very careful around. Although the person has to cope, like I have to with my mood swings despite them being out of hand, if the person suffers depression, severe hypertension, mood swings, or some other mental disorder, you have to be very careful on how you approach them with death, so either they don't kill themselves, or die from their health issue. When I was a teenager, I was faced with death in a similar fashion when I had a BFF die on me who was the same age. I was very upset and with the fierce mood swings I had, I was thinking about very horrible things, his mother and I were getting into physical and verbal fights (she is bipolar). Eventually after some therapy, I finally had to accept that he was gone forever, and there was nothing I could do about it, I broke up my friendship with him knowing that (cannot be friends with a dead person), and while I am still bitter and angry about how it ended too early, I moved on with my life, although his mother and I are still enemies. So this is what the guy in the story needs to do like I did. Learn that his wife is truly gone forever and there is nothing he can do about it. Have him go through some therapy, maybe some depression therapy. Eventually he will move on with his life and be able to start over.

nesgirl wrote: Dead people don't dream. Once they are gone, consciousness is lost forever.

And as much as that person is sad over the love of his life, like everyone else, he has to learn to move on. He can be a bitter hardened negative person taking it out on everyone because of it, but he still has to forget about her. There are certain exceptions you have to be very careful around. Although the person has to cope, like I have to with my mood swings despite them being out of hand, if the person suffers depression, severe hypertension, mood swings, or some other mental disorder, you have to be very careful on how you approach them with death, so either they don't kill themselves, or die from their health issue. When I was a teenager, I was faced with death in a similar fashion when I had a BFF die on me who was the same age. I was very upset and with the fierce mood swings I had, I was thinking about very horrible things, his mother and I were getting into physical and verbal fights (she is bipolar). Eventually after some therapy, I finally had to accept that he was gone forever, and there was nothing I could do about it, I broke up my friendship with him knowing that (cannot be friends with a dead person), and while I am still bitter and angry about how it ended too early, I moved on with my life, although his mother and I are still enemies. So this is what the guy in the story needs to do like I did. Learn that his wife is truly gone forever and there is nothing he can do about it. Have him go through some therapy, maybe some depression therapy. Eventually he will move on with his life and be able to start over.

Once someone is dead, their consciousness is not lost forever. Their BODY no longer has a consciousnesses, because the spirit is no longer in it.

Derpybunneh wrote: Once someone is dead, their consciousness is not lost forever. Their BODY no longer has a consciousnesses, because the spirit is no longer in it.

Yep. Also, Pecatuiah (referred to in colloquial dialogue as “the boogeyman”) is a very real and very nefarious metaphysical being that terrorizes disobedient children and has an indirectly invisible hand in history. You can’t refute that. By your flawed and warped standards of reality (never taking a rational line of inquiry, never following the evidence, never thinking outside of the dogma that you’ve been brainwashed with, et cetera), you now have to accept and believe in the existence of Pecatuiah. Don’t contradict yourself now.

Oh Derpy, why don't you tell Deschain all about how you believe all asexuals will become romantics and singles who die become romantics and will locate their soul mates, and get married in your view in the next life, because marriage and family is THAT important to your beliefs.

Okay this is not a hate question. If you seriously ask Derpy how much marriage and Family means to her religion, she will definitely answer that question, because I know that is basically near foundation to the Mormon belief, which is why asexuality would be out of the question in that religion.

Can we not have hate on an advertisement (and necro) post?

PKJacker wrote: Can we not have hate on an advertisement (and necro) post?

That wasn't hate, PKJacker, and no I wasn't hating on her at all. She's a Mormon. Her religion believes when people die, that every person who dies single will be married in the next life. And Asexual people who die in the next life will become romantics, and will also be married in the next life. How do I know this? Because I live in Utah, and Mormons preach this afterlife doctrine to me all the time, saying I'll be healed of my asexuality in the next life, and will be married to someone.

Okay and if you think that is seriously necro, why not look up the Islamic belief. It is much worse. The guys get 72 virgins.

brianlovestar wrote: When you go to sleep, where do you really GO?

You go in your pajamas right there in bed. Even if you are lucid dreaming of a toilet, it isn't real and you will wake up in a urine-soaked mattress. That's where you really GO. When you really, really have to GO!

I got to the root of the question. I see things differently and doubt anyone can refute my statement.

Oh, wait, was this suppose to be yet another exhausting, futile afterlife debate? My bad. Carry on......

BTW, this truly is just an advertisement post. The user joined and left Nov. 26, only writing two posts, both promoting their book. No need to waste further time here.

Okay and if you think that is seriously necro

Necro means that the post is too old and the new post isn't tying into the thread enough to warrent bringing back the old thread.

That wasn't hate, PKJacker, and no I wasn't hating on her at all. She's a Mormon.

Well you certainly hate that one aspect of her religion, and feel the need to bring it up even though she didn't mention it here on this thread.

What I'm saying is there's no point to this, Derpy isn't going to drop a religion, and you aren't going to accept that one thing.

PKJacker wrote: Well you certainly hate that one aspect of her religion, and feel the need to bring it up even though she didn't mention it here on this thread.

What I'm saying is there's no point to this, Derpy isn't going to drop a religion, and you aren't going to accept that one thing.

There is a reason why I hate marriage, and this is because the people in the marriage do NOT treat it well enough, and I even feel like even in their afterlife, they would still have major issues with hateful issues in the marriages. My sister was married to a guy who was supposed to be an honest Mormon, but he was a gold digger, and he bankrupted her, even after she divorced him. So to me, it doesn't matter what religion, there are still snakes in the grass, and even in that religion, you cannot trust people. Romantic relationships almost never work, and it is meaningless to even try.
I don't feel like Derpy should drop her religion because of this. I'll make a bet with her in fact, if she is right, and I am unable to commit afterlife suicide, I will get back in the afterlife kitchen and make my headmaster a sandwich (I don't think I would ever see anyone like that as an equal, he would be like my permanent boss, as I don't think he ever would treat me like a queerplatonic friend).

deschainXIX wrote:

Derpybunneh wrote:Once someone is dead, their consciousness is not lost forever. Their BODY no longer has a consciousnesses, because the spirit is no longer in it.

By your flawed and warped standards of reality (never taking a rational line of inquiry, never following the evidence, never thinking outside of the dogma that you’ve been brainwashed with, et cetera), you now have to accept and believe in the existence of Pecatuiah. Don’t contradict yourself now.

I'm not brainwashed. I do question my beliefs from time to time, but I'm not the one to believe everything that science says is supposedly true. No offense, but I think you are the one who is brainwashed.

Nice little analogy. A lot of times you've got to approach the natural selection concept indirectly like that so that the subect won't shut down and close up walls of denial.

But, yes. Evolution has indeed been observed directly. We've "seen" it happen right before our eyes! An easy example is the H1N1 virus. I also wonder what creationists think about why exactly we need a new influenza shot each season. Or why hand sanitizer should be avoided. Vaccines and sanitizers kill perhaps 99.9% of the bacterial population. But that 0.01% that happened to have the genetic mutation for being immune to it survive and proliferate and bam--this bacterial species has now evolved to be immune to our vaccine. And we need a new one for next season. Eventually, of course, we're going to run out of vaccination options. We desperately need to find a more economic way of keeping people alive, or else natural (or would it be artificial?) selection will create a super-influenza like good old H1N1. But this one will be unstoppable.

Evolution has also been directly observed in finch populations in the Galapagos Islands. The evolutionary biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant (married), who won the Kyoto Prize and the Pulitzer Prize for best nonfiction writing, have done some truly remarkable work there. They've methodically captured, tested, tagged, and observed and recorded Galapagos finches over six month long sessions every year since 1973, demonstrating rapid evolution via allopatric speciation.

[ Post made via iPad ] Image

deschainXIX wrote:

Derpybunneh wrote:How do you know there is no next life?

How do you know there is an afterlife? Because that's what you've believed all your life?

I hear a chorus of "You can't do that!"s. But consider this. If I make the claim that the boogeyman exists, it would be rational of you to ask me, "How do you know the boogeyman exists?" And (using your own argumentative logic) I would promptly reply, "How do you know he doesn't exist?"

This fallacious problem is summarized in the following axiomatic statement:

*The onus lies upon the believer--not the skeptic--to evidence his claims. *

Humans are mortal. They are collections of frail, organic tissue and liquid that visibly deteriorates and has a limited metabolism and dies. They are kind of like fruiting bodies for the extenuation of life, that strange and adaptive matter procreated ultimately by supernovae. From what we know about the universe and biology and neurology, there is no reason to believe in an afterlife. There is nothing sublime or divine about the homo sapien and anyone who solipsistically and anthropocentrically makes such a claim has a lot of explaining ahead of them. And yet no one can explain it. It's merely a "feel-good" sentiment to comfort people. However, as any Buddhist (or lucid dreamer or meditator) will tell you, nonexistence is true bliss. So really the disposition of the realist is the most comfortable--not that this matters, of course. :D

We really are giving this thread far too much attention. This is an ugly little advertising thread made by an ugly, sad little person. I certainly don't want to strike up another debate. I just wanted to lay my cards on the table in response to DerpyBunneh and didn't realize how long I had made this post. :|

You, sadly, got it all wrong. You say there is nothing divine about our species, homo sapiens. Oh boy, disbeliever, there is mighty things divine about our species. We have the potential to become a god. We have the potential to be able to create our own universes, galaxies, planets, worlds, animals (animals does not include humans), and humans. How little you know of your potential. Oh how sad it is to think that you do not believe that we, humans, have potential. I feel sorry for you. My belief, and many others, believe in an afterlife. I've had a relative that died, and came back to life. TAKE THAT SCIENCE! Try proving how my relative came back to life. Only a god can do this. There's some proof of god and the afterlife for ya. She even wrote about her experience in the spirit world.

deschainXIX wrote:

But, yes. Evolution has indeed been observed directly. We've "seen" it happen right before our eyes! An easy example is the H1N1 virus. I also wonder what creationists think about why exactly we need a new influenza shot each season. Or why hand sanitizer should be avoided. Vaccines and sanitizers kill perhaps 99.9% of the bacterial population. But that 0.01% that happened to have the genetic mutation for being immune to it survive and proliferate and bam--this bacterial species has now evolved to be immune to our vaccine. And we need a new one for next season. Eventually, of course, we're going to run out of vaccination options. We desperately need to find a more economic way of keeping people alive, or else natural (or would it be artificial?) selection will create a super-influenza like good old H1N1. But this one will be unstoppable.

[ Post made via iPad ] Image

Speaking of vaccines, I've never been vaccinated for anything. LOL

This whole discussion is very amusing.

HAGART wrote: I kept my joke clean with only urine and forgot about #2! It could have been a dirty joke! ;) I didn't reply in the other thread but I would love to sit back and listen to Durbybunneh's theories that challenge natural selection. I'll sit back with some popcorn and 3D glasses, and I liked your joke too. Evolution is just a theory though and I'm open minded, but you know what? So is gravity! Believe it or not, nobody can truly explain why it exists and there are competing theories. But it's still obvious it exists, like it or not. I'm on the Evolution Bandwagon right now and it's because I seriously thought about it and agree with it. If Derpy can change my mind, I'm open to it.

As for the new title... I don't know.

I'm open minded too. But when it comes to evolution, that idea is shut out of my mind. I abhor the idea of evolution. Whenever anyone talks about it, I facepalm.

Suit yourself. I was eager to hear your side about evolution, but you certainly can't convince me if you won't challenge it at all, so we're at an impasse. I'll remain brainwashed by Darwin until someone saves me.

Derpybunneh wrote: I've had a relative that died, and came back to life. TAKE THAT SCIENCE! Try proving how my relative came back to life.

I'm very interested in your zombie relative and have heard about Voodoo rituals that raise the dead. I really do want to learn how your people and culture do it and if you can prove it to me.

Derpybunneh wrote: She even wrote about her experience in the spirit world.

Many did. And all the experiences are the same. Some they even listened to a melody that it was exactly the same for all.

And this, for our friends who disagree here, has been started to happen from years long B.C period, so it's really not a rumour that turned into a myth. There are records.

I know, I know.. But before you answer, listen to this. Let's say that you know X and don't know Y. For someone to be able to make you understand what Y is, they must show you in some way that X=Y or it's not. But, they don't know what that X is, that you understand, so they cannot relate to you. And you cannot prove X to them either, because you don't know what Y is, so you can't relate to them. Nothing will work. Contradiction, my friends. If this wouldn't exist, evolving would not, either. Everything would stay the same. So, for me to change your mind is not beneficial and for you to change mine or is not, either. So you can relax, stop playing the scientists and have a disagreement that will really progress, instead of doing questions that whatever the answer is, it's been rejected by you before you have even read it.

But that I don't know if it will happen with you. I love science and surely what we talk about is not related. But I wonder. You doubt. There is a huge difference, that you cannot deny.

I found an interesting website: http://www.wikihow.com/Defend-Evolutionism-Against-Creationism How to Defend Evolutionism Against Creationism (in 7 steps)

I like the first 2 in particular and without that there is no point in ever going further in the discussion:

1. *"Since the theory of evolution is not a religious belief, try to leave religion out of the discussion. Even if you are an atheist, do not use evolutionary theory in your attempts to disprove the existence of god(s), because evolution doesn't disprove God's existence. If a creationist asks you to explain the origin of the universe during a debate on evolution, say he's gone off topic. Biological evolution has nothing to say on the origin of the universe." *

2.* "Recognize that it is important that your friend understand the philosophy of science. Start by making sure your friend can explain to you the scientific method and what "theory" means. Science builds its theories in order to comply to observable facts. It is theoretical and open to revision as fact dictates. The theory of evolution describes the emergence of new species from preexisting species. A good scientist would reject or revise the evolutionary theory based on the facts that are progressively presented. In fact, evolutionary theory has been revised many times over and will continue to be revised in the future as the facts demand. If you must, explain how this is not, as it might first appear, a weakness, but in fact an example of the scientific process at work. Science accepts almost nothing as 100% proven and is always ready to change its mind when new information is discovered."*

You can read more by following the link above, but I don't want Derpy to smash their palm into their face, so I suggest Derpybunneh ignore it. Whatever you do, don't read it. You can hurt yourself. I hope just those two didn't cause bodily harm, and the last thing I want is for someone to get injured.

Very interesting. Τhanks, Hagart.

HAGART wrote: Suit yourself. I was eager to hear your side about evolution, but you certainly can't convince me if you won't challenge it at all, so we're at an impasse. I'll remain brainwashed by Darwin until someone saves me.

Derpybunneh wrote: I've had a relative that died, and came back to life. TAKE THAT SCIENCE! Try proving how my relative came back to life.

I'm very interested in your zombie relative and have heard about Voodoo rituals that raise the dead. I really do want to learn how your people and culture do it and if you can prove it to me.

My religion does not do it. God does it. He sends people back to earth because they did not complete their mission on earth. Many young kids die, because their time was up on earth. They were meant to get a body for a short time and come back.

DesertExplorer wrote:

Derpybunneh wrote:She even wrote about her experience in the spirit world.

But I wonder. You doubt. There is a huge difference, that you cannot deny.

I don't doubt that much. The only thing I doubt is evolution, and science's incorrect attempts to explain things.

Hey all you believers in the idea of evolution, explain how I became a complex "machine" without a God (there Hagart, I challenged the idea of evolution).

I also suggest you read this article. It explains how evolution is disproved without the Bible: http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolution-false-even-without-bible/

Also:

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422.

Listen to this:

"I enjoyed the little tale about the "worlds most prominent scientist getting to talk with God". As the exchange goes; the scientist tells God, "We don't need you anymore, we can even make a man now." God is a bit surprised and asks the scientist to show him. The scientist agrees and arranges his equipment and then goes out to the garden and brings in a pail of earth to put in the machine. God says "Ahem, you must use your own soil, not mine.""

Derpybunneh, you made the confusingly illusory assumption that I was speaking of human potential, when in fact the term I used was divinity. Human potential has nothing to do with it. We are not above all of nature and you provided no reasoning that suggested otherwise, so I reassert my premise: We are no different from the other nameless matter forged in the superheated, hyper-pressurized hearths of supernovae. The advent of the Copernican principle in scientific achievement affirms our cosmic insignificance and infinitesimality.

Why do you think we are divine anyway? Why are we hierarchically above other mammals? You gave no evidence to back up your opinion, of course, but I assume you think we are divine for our intelligence. Intelligence and willingness to cooperate and form societies (allowed by our empathetic natures) have been our greatest assets as a species in the natural history of the earth--ninety nine percent of all of the species ever birthed by our planet have fallen into extinction, and we just happened to come out on top. The meaning of the latin binomial nomenclature we assigned to our species truly reveals how much we pride our intellect. Homo sapien: wise man. Our pattern-searching and -finding natures make us predisposed to the illusion that they’re special. All (relatively) “intelligent” organisms are human, but not all humans are intelligent; that latter is very patent if you ask me. :D Nothing else about the human is special. Our physiologies are poorly constructed and weak and frail just like all other animals.

Wait… are we legitimately debating evolution right now? I thought we were smarter than this as lucid dreamers. All the information is easily accessible for you to read, but I can educate you if you like. I’m not quite as forgiving as Hagart of you all’s poignant and myopic rejection of facts.

Not to get too confessional here, but here’s something interesting: Even when I was devoutly religious and superstitious (I only accepted reality a few months ago; so the whole “You’re just a closed-minded and ignorant skeptic” argument is nonsensical) I embraced science and evolution and the Big Bang because they are our best determinations of reality. And through a series of twisted and convoluted leaps and denial-based casuistry, I thought I could reconcile science with God. But what I found interesting was the people who didn’t even attempt to make reconciliation between evolution and intelligent design, but rather blatantly rejected observational facts. That fascinated me as an ignorant religious person and it fascinates me equally as a realist (or “an atheist,” as the dogmatic would have it).

At this point you’ve dismissed yourselves by demonstrating sophistry through gross misinformation--but I’m willing to educate you.

DesertExplorer, in reference to your “X-Y” piece, I’m not sure why you couldn’t have simply said, “Experiences vary.” Which is an argument that seems to denote the validity of insanity and detachment from reality, commonly known as psychosis. I suppose if we encountered a primal tribe living in an uncharted part of Africa that was gouging out the eyes of every third-born child because they believed a polycephalous daemon would assail the village if they did not, this would be legitimate? By your view, their perspective should be respected and given solace from the light of science and reason.

Those “I went to heaven and came back” testimonies are quite the laughing stock among proficients and pupils alike of the medical academia. Fun fact: to date we have never revived a brain dead person. Death, I’m sorry to report, means the irretrievable deoxygenation of the brain and subsequent cellular apoptosis (although it’s important to note that men and women of medicine often debate over when exactly we should withdraw intravenous and artificial breathing life support on brain dead patients, a process that requires the careful examination and signature from a doctor of neurology; and indeed the vitrification of neural tissue in cryonic preservation might soon become a reality for brain dead patients). That does not include cardiac arrest, in which the brain is quickly failing but still largely functional--and cardiac arrest, incidentally, is the source of most of these stories. In the neuroscientific community it has been theorized that on the threshold of death the brain secretes a series of desperate, last-minute chemicals to induce a hallucinogenic state in which time itself is warped. For all we know, the afterlife does exist subjectively in the sense that at death those final two or three hours in which the brain still has oxidation are exploded into years or even eternities. Time is merely what we perceive it to be, of course, both in the sense of Einsteinian relativity and human psychology. As oneironauts, let us not question the brain’s potency. Illusory afterlives, whose contents are perhaps dictated by the quasi-deceased individual’s expectations of the afterlife, are certainly a possibility in our current deficient understanding of medical neurology.

It’s amusing to me how those who still succumb to superstition (a dying breed, thankfully) are constantly making such obscure, highly dubious position-statements as, “There are records.” In the realm of science, information is universal and all theories and concepts are readily available to anyone willing to learn in peer-edited magazines and articles and books. How variegating and capricious are the queer viewpoints and vastly unsupported claims of the superstitious!

Hey I just changed the title of the thread, do you like it? (Derpy is a Mormon, so if you'd like to research her religion just a bit to help you, go on ahead)

At least your link is an argument better than, "Blah!" :lol:

It has given me some things to think about. I was reading the comments below on that page and they too are divided. I don't know where to start... 2 things puzzle me:

1. All the missing links between species. Why are fossil records of them so hard to find? (My thought on that right now is that change occurs sporadically, but rather quickly when there's an environmental change. So there can be millions of years of Trilobites but only a few thousand years worth of the missing links. They are EXTREMELY RARE to find. That's one hypothesis I have.)

2. How did atoms form amino acids and the building blocks of life through random chance, and why can't it be done in a lab right now? What's missing? Enough time? (This one has me perplexed... it might sound like I'm breaking my first rule and talking about the origin of life, but really I am merely asking how do atoms evolve into life?)

Yes! Hagart is asking the important questions. This I can work with. (Derpy, you're still just shouting, "Blah!")

HAGART wrote:

1. All the missing links between species. Why are fossil records of them so hard to find? (My thought on that right now is that change occurs sporadically, but rather quickly when there's an environmental change. So there can be millions of years of Trilobites but only a few thousand years worth of the missing links. They are EXTREMELY RARE to find. That's one hypothesis I have.)

What parts of the diverse fossil record we’ve managed to uncover have revealed irrefutable anatomical homology between species, indicating the succession of forms over time. It's difficult to scour the earth and piece together deteriorating rocks. Darwin didn't really understand molecular biology (it wasn't around in his day), so many were under the impression that evolution through natural selection was a very slow process, but it actually can be very rapid, especially in microevolution, observed today directly in HIV, the cause of AIDs, and drug resistant staph bacteria like MRSA, as I mentioned before. Evolution can come by two theorems, gradualism, which is the traditional view and holds to the idea that small accumulated changes result in either allopatric or sympatric speciation, and punctuated equilibrium, proposed in 1972 by Niles Eldredge and Steven Jay Gould, which holds that evolution consists of long periods of stasis followed by rapid punctuations of change shuttled by catastrophes and geographic shifts, et cetera.

HAGART wrote: 2. How did atoms form amino acids and the building blocks of life through random chance, and why can't it be done in a lab right now? What's missing? Enough time? (This one has me perplexed... it might sound like I'm breaking my first rule and talking about the origin of life, but really I am merely asking how do atoms evolve into life?)

The Miller-Urey experiment is a beautiful demonstration of abiogenesis, in which the primordial conditions of earth were simulated and it was proved that complex, organic, diverse compounds like amino acids can arise from simple, inorganic sludge. Things like hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide and nitrogen, all of which we know by volcanic evidence were around on primordial earth, were used to give rise to more than 20 different amino acids in a laboratory. This was then easily followed by the synthesis of polymers and self-replicating molecules and other protobionts. Which, as we all know, formed prokaryotes which became the organelles (particularly the mitochondria) of the vastly more complicated eukaryotes.

The science is all there, guys. Doesn't take that much work to read and learn.

I hate reading books. Blah! I'm glad DeschainXIX condensed the information for me, thanks.

nesgirl wrote: Hey I just changed the title of the thread, do you like it?

I don't see a change and the first poster is still there.

Yeah, the topic title didn't change.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

I just realized after looking back. She means she edited her first post. Now it's depressing... :cry:

Did she? That's what I thought, but on my device her title is not changed.

We really should have had this discussion on "nesgirl and Summerlander," not here. Ell well.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

Derpybunneh wrote:

DesertExplorer wrote:Derpybunneh wrote:She even wrote about her experience in the spirit world.

But I wonder. You doubt. There is a huge difference, that you cannot deny.

I don't doubt that much. The only thing I doubt is evolution, and science's incorrect attempts to explain things. In the last paragraph I'm not referring to you.

HAGART wrote: I just realized after looking back. She means she edited her first post. Now it's depressing... :cry:

No I had that post there from the beginning. I edited in the title Mormons VS Scientists, and I kept goofing up on what I was going to name the title.

I was trying to get through with the title author, because I seriously thought he was referring to his experiences with the afterlife, and how the person coped with their loss. Because I had to deal with my own loss back when I was a teenager of my BFF/queerplatonic friend, I had to fully explain to this user how to cope. I left out the graphic details of what I was doing to myself numerous times after that,because I thought that wouldn't have been appropriate for a newbie.

However that story is practically true. This is the reason why I don't go hunting for queerplatonic friends anymore, because of that.

Oops, you're right, I can see Derpybunneh quoted your original one and it's the same. And now I see the title at the top of that post. I don't know why I didn't notice yesterday. To be honest I didn't pay much attention to this thread until just the other day, so forgive me if I glazed over your old post before Derpy necromanced this thread like a dead relative. I've heard about your close friend dying before from other posts and I can imagine how that would be a life changer for you and a huge slap in the face from a cruel world. I'd be bitter too, and wary of new friendships for fear of it happening again. Or you may simply be asking yourself, "What's the point?"

I know now why you changed the title. As soon as the blatant advertisement is removed you will get bumped and that will be the new title. You asked what I think of it and I personally don't think there's a need to mention religion and this shouldn't be a thread to gang up on Derpybunneh. Let's see.... afterlife and evolution were brought up so perhaps something like "Life and Death" which also relates to your first post. (Just a suggestion and it's in your control).

HAGART wrote: Oops, you're right, I can see Derpybunneh quoted your original one and it's the same. And now I see the title at the top of that post. I don't know why I didn't notice yesterday. To be honest I didn't pay much attention to this thread until just the other day, so forgive me if I glazed over your old post before Derpy necromanced this thread like a dead relative. I've heard about your close friend dying before from other posts and I can imagine how that would be a life changer for you and a huge slap in the face from a cruel world. I'd be bitter too, and wary of new friendships for fear of it happening again. Or you may simply be asking yourself, "What's the point?"

I know now why you changed the title. As soon as the blatant advertisement is removed you will get bumped and that will be the new title. You asked what I think of it and I personally don't think there's a need to mention religion and this shouldn't be a thread to gang up on Derpybunneh. Let's see.... afterlife and evolution were brought up so perhaps something like "Life and Death" which also relates to your first post. (Just a suggestion and it's in your control).

Unfortunately, it did happen to me again (except the friendship wasn't queerplatonic). Actually about a year ago, one of the peers I was friends with in high school and had Lucid Dreams with (he was probably the only one who didn't leave my side) died a year ago. Now I really do think about it.
I ALWAYS make enemies with nearly everyone. I really don't even want to be in this world.

I know Derpy was only trying to make me feel better about my loss. And I have nothing against that. I just have issues in her marriage beliefs, because I am afraid of getting abused, house slaved, or worse for all eternity. You have to remember what it was like for females back in the 1800s when they had no rights.

I got it all figured out. I went to sleep. For a while, I was not really sure, so I hooked up a cam to watch me all night long. I put motion deters outside of my door with an alarm, just to wake me up should I decide to flee the scene. But, the video clearly showed that I stayed in bed all night, cept when I got up to take a piss. I was off camera for a short time. Then I started wondering, where did I go, when I went to take a piss? I don't know! So, my next project will be to strap a camera to my ass.